No Climate Change? My ASS!!!

Gold Member

I am finishing up my Masters in Sustainable Development & the Environment, and an obvious topic in that is climate change.

I am not so much the freaky environmentalist. I don't wear organic cotton clothes, don't chain myself to nuclear waste, or throw cake at bad politicians (tempting, but no).

I am however worried and frustrated about this topic though, and well, as i always like a discussion, i thought id share my frustration with the lot of ya.

In 1992 the world came together in Rio, and later again in Kyoto (1997) to try to agree on CO2 reduction.
The talks were about a reduction of anywhere between 6-8 percent for the Western developed societies, the developing countries and Russia could still emit much more. The emissionrates had to be reduced from 1990 levels!!. The promised percentages are a drop of water on a hot plate, as 60% reduction was needed to nullify climate changes. But ok...to show goodwill.

We finally have an agreement to sign the friggin' treaty, but the second Bush (yeah sorry) marched into the White House with his oil dripping entourage, one of the first 'acts' was to cancel Kyoto. Climate Change caused by CO2 had not been proven, so he stated. The fact that the rest of the world did think so, as well as the UN, and every leading science agency, had no effect obviously.

Somewhere in the spring of 2001, Bush's own scientists however came to the conclusion that CO2 was causing climate change. Bush shook no.

Eversince i started my studies, i took careful notice of the worlds weather. It has been proven that the earth has warmed up since the 1950's, a few degrees C. Holland was known as a very cold country always, frozen lakes and snow were inherently Dutch, and many painting from Dutch masters portray a cold and snowfilled winter. Since the beginning of the 1980's however, we have maybe a weekend or two of iceskating, and maybe 3 scattered days of snowfall. Normally it also rains like hell in Holland. This year it has hardly rained since the beginning of FEbruary. Every month this year has had record temperatures. 2003 will be in the top 5 of the warmest since 1890. And 6 of the 8 years since 1995 have been one of the warmest since meteorology took off in Holland.

Now i am also getting news from friends in cali that strange storms are taking place. Italy has had above 30 degree temperatures eversince March. A lotta people died there from the heat. The Matterhorn has lost a few feet cause the top melted (for real!) Rivers are treading out of their boundaries almost every year now. (Remember the Danube last year, flooding Prague and Dresden?).

The point is that the climate change is minimal at best, and is part of nature. In fact studies have shown (I can't cite them at the moment since I don't carry them with me) that its cooler now than it was 500 years ago.

Gold Member

The dangers of global warming are speculative to some extent -- since none of these particular dangers (ice caps melting, for example) have ever happened before, environmentalists have nothing concrete to point to -- their predictions are made through modeling.

However, sources that report that "it's cooler now than it was 500 years ago" are also engaging in speculation and modeling. 500 years ago (1503?), there was no widely accepted scale for measuring temperature (the Fahrenheit scale came along a century later), and there were no instruments for measuring temperature. (Santorio's 'thermoscope' came along 50 years later, and it wasn't very precise; Galileo's water thermometer arrived just before 1600.)

We don't have any actual temperature readings from 500 years ago to compare with. Hence -- extrapolation and computer modeling.

Ultimately, then, it comes down to which models you believe in -- what sorts of variables are used, what assumptions are made. That kind of thing takes scrutiny, and isn't dismissed as easily as you've done here.

For me, there is no overwhelming evidence that global warming has or is occurring. A few years ago, I took a special problem course in applied math and tried to look objectively at the data and models used to predict global warming.

One of the most convincing studies was completed in the mid-1990s by a statistician at Woods Hole (Long Island, New York). He looked at numerous data sets across the globe for as many years as possible; observational data was supplemented by data inferred from other sources such as pollen deposits on glaciers, annual snow pack in glaciers, etc. His conclusion was that the natural variability in the data was greater than the perceived-upward trend in the temperatures during the past century.

On the other hand, the assumption underlying many of the models predicting global warming is simple and elegant. A two degree C rise in the average temperature of the oceans will release substantial quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This release will result in increased trapping of radiation by the atmosphere and a corresponding rise in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. The rise in oceanic temperatures releases more of the stored carbon dioxide which warms the atmosphere and oceans and so on. In other words, it is believed that we are near the threshold for a positive feedback system (exponential growth in CO2 releases and increase in global temperatures). [Note: the oceans are the environmental sink for CO2 and as they warm the releases of CO2 increase. Ya know that is why warm beer goes flat faster than cold.]

I support the international movement to reduce and limit carbon dioxide. The consequences of not acting are too horrendous; particularly, if we are close to a global threshold for positive feedback. Since we are a major generator of CO2, I think we should be out in front on this issue and leading the search for technical and engineering solutions. To me this decision rationale is like playing the lottery, it may not happen but oh man! if did!!!

Gold Member

Javierdude22: [quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=0#1 date=07/31/03 at 08:48:55]The point is that the climate change is minimal at best, and is part of nature. In fact studies have shown (I can't cite them at the moment since I don't carry them with me) that its cooler now than it was 500 years ago.[/quote]

Nlatimer-

That is actually quite the opposite of what i have read.
According to proxy data from the UN and several scientific agencies, the northern hemisphere experienced a small ice age, starting somewhere after the Dark Ages. So from the 1500's onwards, temperatures started to gradually drop. This would have continued were it not that the process was turned upside down by our Industrialization. Since the 1900's we experienced a sudden and rather steep temperature rise. Coincidence? Maybe, but very unlikely, given the steepness.

We don't have any actual temperature readings from 500 years ago to compare with. Hence -- extrapolation and computer modeling.

Ultimately, then, it comes down to which models you believe in -- what sorts of variables are used, what assumptions are made. That kind of thing takes scrutiny, and isn't dismissed as easily as you've done here.
[/quote]

Very true Mindseye. Modeling is all we have, and i do believe they can be faulty. They sure as hell come up with new scenarios all the time. But in general, their general message still is: the earth is warming up too fast to be caused by internal natural causes. Of course, we do have written testamony's and well, the paintings of Dutch Masters. I'm not saying that what Holland experienced goes for the rest of the world, but we're not an island, everything is interconnected, so i am tempted to use it as evidence. Cause from written testamony's and paintings from the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's it was evident that Holland suffered from cruel and harsh winters. We even lost the 1672 war to France cause of it. We broke down the dykes of the Rivers Rhine and Meuse, but guess what? Everything froze up, and the French Marched into the province of Holland without a problem. Hardly scientifical, but still, i fing it difficult to believe that our soft winters (below zero is something to talk about nowadays) are caused by natural causes.

I took the liberty to provide some scientific data, as you are right, models and the variables used make or break the hypothesis.

I used data from the UN, an organisation i believe to be free from other interests but the world itsself. They have a special organisation for climate change and everything about it, called the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

They have all the charts, graphics, and documents there are, and very scientifical. I love that kinda data by the way. Take a look at this website:

As you can see the rise in temperature is very 'untrendy'. And very coincidentally starts when the Western World started the Industrialization. We are now at a 'meager' 0.75 degree rise in temperature (Northern Hemisphere) compared to 1900. For 2100, the most optimistic model suggests a 2.5 rise compared to 1900. And as you can see around you with some strange weather types occuring, all we need is a 1 degree rise to shake up things.

The causes then. Are they anthropogenic, or naturally induced? Hm, the IPCC concludes that although it has not been unproven yet, that nature, or for example solar activity, caused the rises in temperature, it ha's been proven to them that the extent of the rise could not have been caused solely by those factors. According to the IPCC, humans háve their part in the causes of temperature rise. That part has been proven, according to them. The natural causes have not been proven, but have also not been refuted fully. Therefore they keep that option open as well.

Gold Member

gigantikok: thought I'd take a few days to gather up the information to argue with you, Javierdude. Once again, what is expressed below are my opinions. If any part of it offends you, don't read further. Here goes:

There is no scientific proof of global warming. All responsible scientists will admit that. It's all the result of computer models that attempt to integrate hundreds, out the millions, of variables that affect the weather. And you are trying to use the fact that during the 1980's, out of billions of years of recorded history and, obviously, fluctuating regional and global temperatures, there were fewer days for ice skating!!! I'll let you do the math: it's 10 divided by 4.5 billion to get the percentage time in your sample. You even admit that the Kyoto Treaty is a political document to hobble the successful, capitalist economic system in the U.S. so that the socialists, who have been unsuccessful in their own right for 200 years, can catch up. If not, why are the biggest, least efficient, in terms of production of pollution, developing economies, such as India and China, left out of the treaty? By the way, Clinton and his gang of moral and ethically challenged cronies brought the treaty back to the U.S. As you presumably know all foreign treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Bubba refused to submit the treaty to the Senate. Why, you ask? Because they voted a sense of the Senate on the treaty, the result was 98-0 (with two absent members) to REJECT the treaty. I repeat: they rejected the letter and spirit of the treaty unanimously, BEFORE the "oil dripping" second Bush ever set foot in the White House. There are many - yes, many - scientific, economic, and political counter arguments to global warming, which I don't have time to go into here.

The following is probably the single best one site reply to the global warming myth. Its the Petition Project signed by 17,100 (3 time more the leftist Union of Concerned Scientists in support of GW) qualified scientists disputing the GW conclusions. As I said there are many other voices, largely unheard because of media bias, disputing the alarmist claims.

Listed below are 19,200 of the initial signers

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.

their e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: info@oism.org

Gold Member

mindseye: It's an interesting link, Gigantikok, and I thank you for doing your research.

Since you labeled UCS as a "leftist" organization, I hope you'll acknowledge that your source is biased as well. I looked through the list of signees of the petition you've mentioned.

The 1900 "not independently verified" signees were easy to spot -- I doubt there's a scientist named '154 Johnson Hall', for example. I checked a number of the scientists that were listed.

A disproportionate number of them were affiliated with non-prestigious Christian or right-wing organizations. Perry Mason, for example, is indeed a real chemist at Lubbock Christian University, which has a domain (www.lcu.edu), but no web page. Gilbert Pacey and Rosemary van Vranken are both alumni of Jesuit schools.

There are also a number of them whose research is in an unrelated field. Edward Sabitsky PhD, for example, hasn't published in an academic journal since 1978; he now works in manufacturing. Van Vranken (above) holds a PhD, but it's in administration.

Obviously, I didn't have the time or the inclination to scrutinize all 19,000 names that appear with this petition, and the sample I chose might not be representative. Besides, these people are just as entitled to their opinions as I am, and I respect their opinions.

I'm just not convinced that "many of the best scientific minds in the United States" are represented here.

Gold Member

Javierdude22: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=0#8 date=08/04/03 at 15:09:01]
There is no scientific proof of global warming. All responsible scientists will admit that. It's all the result of computer models that attempt to integrate hundreds, out the millions, of variables that affect the weather. And you are trying to use the fact that during the 1980's, out of billions of years of recorded history and, obviously, fluctuating regional and global temperatures, there were fewer days for ice skating!!! I'll let you do the math: it's 10 divided by 4.5 billion to get the percentage time in your sample. You even admit that the Kyoto Treaty is a political document to hobble the successful, capitalist economic system in the U.S. so that the socialists, who have been unsuccessful in their own right for 200 years, can catch up. If not, why are the biggest, least efficient, in terms of production of pollution, developing economies, such as India and China, left out of the treaty? [/quote]

Gig, very nice posts dude, cool link. Now were all discussing!!

First i dó wanna elaborate on some of the things i've said in previous posts, which you interpreted differently than i meant them to.

As you will see throughout my post i have not based my assumptions on a few lesser days of iceskating in the 1980's and 90's. That is only percepted proof to add the scientific proof in the IPCC and United Nations links i provided there. You're right that no scientist will say that they know for 100% percent sure that global warming through CO2 is happening. Global warming is a fact by the way, it is only the cause where the debate is.
They will add however, that a lot of them áre 99% sure. Theres always room for error.

I did not say that 'the Kyoto Treaty is a political document to hobble the successful, capitalist economic system in the U.S. so that the socialists, who have been unsuccessful in their own right for 200 years, can catch up' i said it was drop of water on a hot plate as 60% of CO2 reduction is needed to cancel any climate change effects. I am very much fór the treaty, to show the goodwill of politics.

I don't know what you mean with socialists having to catch up. I do agree that marxism is a very unsuccessfull ideology, especially the marxism-communism we experienced for 75 years or so. I can tell you however, that there are many forms of socialism, but that the word has bad connotations in the US, maybe still from the McCarthy witch hunt of the 50's. In Europe, many countries of the EU have a form of socialism called democratic socialism. It is socialism taken litterally, meaning that we are very social, towards our fellow human beings. It means that really rich people pay a lot more taxes than really poor people. It means that poor people can take free, or very cheap full medical coverage. It means that people that cannot find a job, will get a state income. Not the measily 200 dollars of welfare people in the US get. But an income with which people can really feed themselves, and rent a home. It means that really poor people will get a partial rent exemption. etc etc...that is what soicialism is in Europe, doesnt sound all that bad i think, although no system is perfect.

The least CO2 producing countries are left out of the treaty cause we have polluted way too much already, and they, based on population, havent yet. The US takes up 37% of the worlds CO2 production. Europe 28% i think, China has 4 times the population of the US and doesnt pollute even half of what the US does. Pretty fair i think then, that they get to pollute and develop a bit more.

About your link. I do believe there are a large number of scientists that don't believe that there is GW. There will never be unanimity (is that a word?!) over this, but in the scientific world, they are not unanimous (that ís a word ) on anything so it seems. I am not convinced that they have no other interest in this but their own opinion. Scientific research is álways funded by private donations, but especially by companies, and interests do come in there. But even besides that, i do not think 17,000 is a lot, compared to the number of scientists we have in this world. And all of them are from the US.

Look, all i know is a couple of things:
- I've seen the data from the United Nations, and it is very real.
- The steep rise in temperature is not normal, neither part of a trend, proxy date made that clear.
- The entire world has ratified the treaty cause they believe GW is happening, governments act upon it. why would they be fooling themselves if it werent true?
- My government is very much so acting upon it. Ive seen that hands on at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On my university it is all i have been taught by very respectable scientists.
- And besides all that, what i am seeing around me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, but for me personally, i am sure of it

Gold Member

Anti-global warming studies are generally funded by the fossil fuel industry, much like the studies that "proved" there was no connection between smoking and cancer.

Other evidence favors global warming:

The ten hottest years in recorded history (since the 1860's, when reliable measurements began) have all occurred after 1973.

Average annual temperatures have gradually been climbing.

The polar caps are melting, and giant cracks are appearing in their enormous ice shelves. An 800-square-mile ice shelf called the Wordie has disappeared from Antarctica. A gigantic iceberg the size of Rhode Island also broke off the Antarctic in January, 1995. If even a tenth of the ice in Antarctica melts, it would raise sea levels 12 to 30 feet around the world.

Forests are climbing farther north into the polar region, thanks to warmer weather and receding glaciers. There has also been a proliferation of plant life in Antarctica.

Disease outbreaks have been increasing all over the world, due to the fact that diseases thrive better in hotter weather.

El NiÃ±o seems to be staying longer. For the last ten years, El NiÃ±o has been causing conditions from extreme drought to extreme rain on the West Coast.

Marine animals have been migrating to newer habitats. Creatures who normally live in warm water have been expanding their habitat, whereas creatures who live in cold water have been retreating farther north and south.

While we're here, NASA has proven ozone depletion beyond a reasonable doubt, the environment will heal itself (in millions of years), "creation science" isn't, Kennewick man looks more like Wes Studi than Patrick Stewart, and no psychologist or geneticist believes a word of The Bell Curve.

There. That dealt with pretty much all the politically-motivated myths about science.

Gold Member

hawl: "No psychologist or geneticist believes a word of The Bell Curve"-sorry, can't let that one pass, especially on a site that involves genetic endowments. I don't even have a copy of the book, so I won't discuss it at length (ahem). However, one of the two authors, the late Richard Herrnstein (no relation, but ya gotta love that extra r), was chairman of Harvard's Psychology Department. Was that an irrelevant, fringe-dwelling position in the field? Other legitimate figures in the field of Psychology believe plenty of the words in the book, for a good chunk of the book just brings the reader up to date on the current, accepted "psychometrical" data. The authors' policy suggestions based on the data are, of course, open to debate. Despite being a best-seller, the book is known as a prime example of "often discussed, seldom read". As I've mentioned before, I want Bush out of the White House ASAP. Attacking that book only helps him, and aligns one with not very serious people. If nothing else, the book is an unusual example of policy analysts bending over backwards to constantly at least mention the opposition's argument. This behavior is no doubt partially due to memories of how pioneers in the fields of genetics studies and IQ testing were physically assaulted by "students" in the '60's. www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

Gold Member

Actually, Herrnstein and Murray leave out numerous things. For example, Japanese and Koreans have median IQs of 111 and 113, respectively. Koreans living in Japan? 80. Herrnstein no baka. Also, the absolute intelligence of the entire planet has increased around the world; a typical, fiftieth-percentile black man today would have an IQ of 130 in 1940. (Besides which, there's more than one form of intelligence, therefore IQ, in its one-dimensional form, is meaningless.)

And if it isn't genetic, than Herrnstein's "middle-class values" follow the rules of Lamarckian inheritance, so it's not inevitable as he claims.

Gold Member

Alarmism for Sale
Are "global warming" and similar scares really anything to worry about? A story in The Economist gives reason to think that environmental alarmism is a triumph of marketing rather than real science. The topic of the article is a new book by Sir Martin Rees called "Our Final Century" and subtitled "A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future in This Century--on Earth and Beyond":

how does he justify his suggestion that mankind might have only a 50-50 chance of surviving the 21st century--our final century, to use the alarmist title of the book? Even before your correspondent could ask him that question at a recent literary event, Sir Martin confessed to being a fan of Bjorn Lomborg--a Danish academic who recently caused some controversy when he suggested that greens have been systematically distorting the fact that the environment has been getting healthier in many countries.

Sir Martin then took the reviewer's copy of "Our Final Century" and pencilled in a question mark after the title. His publishers had ruled it out. The American publishers even changed the title from "Our Final Century" to "Our Final Hour." Sir Martin is clever enough to know that the end is not nigh, but he put up with the chicanery in order to gain a wider audience. A small sin, perhaps, in such an important book.

Didn't we once hear that Al Gore's famous enviroporn book originated as a weight-loss tome called "Girth in the Balance"?

Oh, and Javierdude, OF COURSE your professors are all teaching you global warming. College professors and teachers in general (especially in largely liberal foreign countries) are NOTORIOUS for being extremely biased to the left. They are going to preach alot of liberal, leftist enviro-propoganda because it is in their best interest to keep the ludicrous, unfounded theories spreading to younger generations. Many college professors are notorious for being biased, thus, i never take any of their theories seriously. Political agenda, my man.

In regard to the comment about how many illegitiate names are on the list. Well, with a list as big as 19,000, there are obviously going to be inconsitencies and unimportant names. You specifically, though, searched through the list to point out the 10 most ludicrous names in there. You also made a point to try and link christianity to anti-global warming. Agreeably some supporters will be religious, but I hardly think that discredits their scientific beliefs. This is about science, and a pursuit for the truth, not about using any trick to try and discredit someone else's opinion. Frankly, i havent looked very hard through the list, either, but if i search long enough I will find very reliable sources and very reliable names. I know that as a fact.

To alot of what Javierdude said: I will repeat, you know nothing about the millions of different variables in weather. To all of you that are taking data from the last 20 years and claiming they are the hottest decades and blah blah, like i repeat...that is 20 years over the span of millions of years. No matter how many elaborate charts and graphs you spit out of a computer, you will never truly understand the different variables of weather over the last million or so years. Another reason if because there is no direct proof of what weather was like in the past. What if a 30 year span a few thousand years ago was hotter than this 20 year span you keep bringing up? You don't know. You just DON"T know. There are many other factors to be considered with weather anyway, i.e. El nino, axis tilt, moon position, so on. Key word, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW. Tons of american evidence can "look" real, but appearences are very frequently decieving. Many people 1000 years ago very convinced through theorizing and charts and so on that the world was flat. They thought they were so right. They weren't were they? The earth APPEARED to be flat, but it wasn't. Science is frequently decieving. I will only begin to consider global warming is not a crock of shit if a record of the temperature of the last 500 years every day had been kept up until now, not just the last damn 2 decades.

So, if it's worthwhile to discredit global warming theory, are you inadvertently suggesting that it's just good and well to ignore anything an environmentalist has to tell you, especially if it reeks of a political agenda?

We could argue source validity for environmental theory, fact, or "propaganda" all day long. I haven't heard many of these studies, and for that matter, I could hardly tell you what a degree Celsius here or there will do to alter an ecosystem. What I can tell you is that, especially with Bush's notorious depreciation for environmental support, it just makes more sense to start thinking environmentally smart.

I know I can't drive in my car for too long without hearing a popular radio commercial endorsing carpooling and automobile maintenance: The guy in the commercial asks you to hold your breath for the entire length of the ad while the woman talks about harmful emissions, poor air quality, and so forth. (And to be honest, I almost held my breath but not quite.)

And that makes sense to me. I make sure I tune up my car when it needs it, and since I live within walking distance to work, I opt to walk instead of drive. When I get my new place at the end of the month, I hope to get my hands on some recycle bins so I can properly dispose of junk mail, papers, plastic, glass, and so forth.

Call it corny, but for all the times I heard growing up on television and in the news that we should protect our environment for future generations to enjoy, something tells me that it's a pretty good idea. I appreciate clean and fresh air and unlittered streets, for all the people who think it's the thing to chug around town in an SUV... I weep. With that said, no matter how you feel on the global warming position, why don't you reinvest that energy into something a little more useful?

Gold Member

gigantikok: im not trying to discredit environmental awareness, I'm simply arguing against a theory that frightened me when i was younger (because all my teachers even in ELEMENTARY school taught us this, before we had the ability to form our own opinions... can someone say "propoganda"?). Books like "Countdown to human death" and so on are a little extreme, and I think it is unfair to play with people's minds like that. You can tell people to be careful with the environment without scaring them shitless with crackpot theories and political propoganda.

Gold Member

SpeedoGuy: Ever notice how people come into this debate tending to back the science that matches their political predisposition?

I fear the angry polemics on this subject are going to blind us to a dispassionate analysis of data. Isn't that what science is about? At least, that's how it was taught to me.

Fear mongering? I see it everywhere and its an old tactic, but both sides do it and I find that disappointing. What's worse, so many of these discussions seem to evolve into a contest on flaming those with an opposing point of view. Can't there be a forum without implications that the opposition are imbeciles? Maybe it can happen in Europe but in the U.S. the tone of debate on just about every subject is so combative and partisan that I throw up my hands in despair of accomplishing anything substantive.

I make my living in the atmospheric sciences and I do what I can to take a rational view of the climate change debate. Though I have a better-than-average understanding of the physics of atmospheric processes, I'm certainly no expert in statistics and climate science. I do know, however, that I'd no more sign a petition saying there was absoluely no evidence of global warming than I would sign one that claims the end is nigh.

Just my two cents worth...I remain an interested observer of the debate.

Gold Member

gigantikok: Pieces of an interview I found that pretty much responds to all the comments jonb made:

Hot Topics, Cold Truth

Dr. S. Fred Singer interviewed by John F. McManus

A leading atmospheric physicist brings some cool-headed reasoning to the hot topics of global warming, the ozone hole, and other environmental issues.

Dr. S. Fred Singer is an atmospheric physicist who leads the Washington-based Science and Environmental Policy Project. He is also a distinguished research professor at George Mason University in Virginia and the Institute for Space Science and Technology in Florida. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now a branch of the Department of Commerce. He is the author of numerous books, the latest of which is Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming&#8217;s Unfinished Debate.

A. I certainly do. The climate warms and cools naturally all the time. It changes from day to day, month to month, season to season, year to year, and so on. At times, there is global warming; at other times there is global cooling. Some climate changes are predictable and some are not. We can predict that the winters are colder than the summers because we understand the mechanism. We cannot predict the climate from year to year, however, because we do not know why it fluctuates. When the climate warms, there could be a number of reasons for it doing so, including the sun. Another possibility is that human activities are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and this could produce some warming.

The important question then is: How important is the effect of human activities? And that we cannot tell. We know the theory, which says that human activity could be important, but the theory cannot be trusted until it has been verified. Until now, this theory, which is based largely on a mathematical model, has not been validated against observations. If the theory becomes validated against observations, then we can be more confident about using it to predict the future. But we&#8217;re not there yet, and nobody should be basing conclusions and remedies on an unverified theory.

Q. What do the scientific data really show about global warming?

A. Data from earth satellites in use since 1979 do not show any warming. But, eventually, they probably will because carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. My personal guess, and I stress that this is only my guess, is that there is a greenhouse effect and that it is very small in comparison to natural fluctuations of the climate. We don&#8217;t see this effect yet, but we may notice it in the next century. Even if we do notice it, it will be extremely small and actually inconsequential. It will be an interesting scientific curiosity but it won&#8217;t be of any practical importance.

Q. If we experience a couple of warmer years, is it possible that the next year will be cooler?

A. Of course. Climate fluctuates all the time, and we aren&#8217;t always able to know why. During the period 1940 until 1975, the climate actually cooled. There was real fear that we were entering another ice age. But the climate suddenly warmed and these fears disappeared.

Q. We repeatedly hear mention of the "greenhouse effect" in which heat is supposedly trapped in the atmosphere because of the presence of carbon dioxide and other gases. Is there such an effect?

A. Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. But the problem here is that high government officials have declared that climate science is "settled" and "compelling." The clear implication is that enough is known about it to act, and that any further research findings would be "policy-irrelevant" and not important to international deliberations that have led to a climate treaty. My published conclusions state otherwise, that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential. In addition, the impacts of warming and the higher carbon dioxide levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities, especially for agriculture that thrives on carbon dioxide.

But, again, the greenhouse effect is real. The emissions of carbon dioxide that we are putting into the atmosphere will make it more pronounced. But that doesn&#8217;t mean that the climate is going to warm perceptibly. The atmosphere is very complicated, and there are negative feedbacks that cancel some of the warming. The easiest way to understand what I mean by "negative feedback" is to consider clouds. If you warm the ocean, you get more water vapor, more evaporation, and more clouds that will keep sunlight from entering the earth&#8217;s surfaces. This results in a cooling effect &#8212; a negative feedback.

Q. Reports about global warming repeatedly cite the 1990 report produced by the UN&#8217;s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Is this a reliable document?

A. The IPCC modified its own report after it had been approved, taking out key phrases to make it appear certain that human activities were affecting the climate. A few key individuals even removed much of the phraseology that discussed the uncertainties of such an opinion. Numerous scientists have pointed out that this document is unreliable.

Q. Were the scientists who produced the initial IPCC report aware that changes had been made after they approved it?

A. No, the changes were done quietly by just a few individuals. Two thousand persons worked on this UN project and more than 1,000 of them were scientists. Approximately 80 saw and approved what they thought was the final report and then just a handful altered it. The newer version (in 1996) included a "Summary for Policymakers" containing a previously unmentioned factor involving human activity&#8217;s effect on climate. This led to a conclusion that "the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate." Those who are skeptical about this IPCC conclusion have viewed the statement about "discernible human influence" as trivial and meaningless. But, on the other hand, the media and many policy experts have welcomed its convenient formula as scientific proof of a coming climate catastrophe.

Q. Did any of the scientists involved in this UN study balk at the alterations?

A. Yes, and perhaps the most noteworthy was the highly respected Dr. Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences whose objection was published in the Wall Street Journal. He became aware of what had been done and considered it a very grave breach of scientific protocol and ethics. He&#8217;s been maligned ever since by individuals from the UN group and by others who decided to throw in their fortune with the UN. These people actually altered a graph and some of the text in the IPCC report.

Q. There have been several articles about an increase in the number and size of icebergs that have broken off from Antarctica. Is the increase in icebergs due to global warming?

A. The climate did warm over the last 100 years and that&#8217;s why icebergs are breaking off. There&#8217;s no question about that. But the warming took place between 1880 and 1940 so that it is a bit warmer now than it was 100 years ago.

Q. Does it take that long for an iceberg to break off?

A. Yes, it takes a long time for portions of the ice to break off. The melting has been going on for thousands of years and the West Antarctic ice sheet is still melting. The ice sheet may even disappear in 7,000 years. But the real point is that there&#8217;s nothing we can do about it. The reason it&#8217;s melting is because it&#8217;s warmer now than when the ice formed a long time ago.

Q. You mentioned the "climate treaty" and I assume you mean the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that called for industrial nations to cut emissions of "greenhouse gases" in order to deal with global warming. What is your response to this proposal?

A. The Kyoto proposal, even if fully implemented, won&#8217;t accomplish anything as far as climate is concerned. It certainly won&#8217;t stop the Antarctic ice sheet from melting. The only thing that will stop that is another ice age.

Q. Won&#8217;t it accomplish a great deal as far as industry is concerned?

A. Oh, yes. But the announced purpose of the proposal is to prevent global warming and stabilize the climate. It won&#8217;t do anything of the sort. If you obey it punctiliously, and all the countries that are supposed to cut back their industrial activity do exactly as called for, even the UN group has calculated that it will reduce the temperature during the next century by 0.05 degrees. No one can even measure that! It is admittedly completely ineffective, so now they&#8217;re saying that it&#8217;s an important first step.

Q. Do you see this as far more political than scientific?

A. Yes I do. Even a UN report says that we have to reduce emissions by between 60 and 80 percent worldwide. The Kyoto Protocol, if implemented, reduces emissions by a mere five percent among industrialized nations only. But this would have a devastating effect on the economy of our nation. It&#8217;s part of the anti-technology, anti-energy, anti-growth philosophy of the extreme "greens."

Gold Member

Q. Have you seen or heard about the rash of television ads stressing the threat of global warming?

A. These campaigns are being underwritten by a few foundations. The National Environmental Trust has received $11 million to run ads. The government is doing its share by bleeding off money from research and putting it into town meetings and other gatherings to get people upset about this issue. Recently, there was a campaign in Minneapolis called "The Heat is On" to alert people in Minnesota to the danger of slightly warmer winters. That really takes the cake, doesn&#8217;t it? I would think the people in Minnesota would be pleased if the climate warmed. The Canadian government has another program entitled "Environment Canada" to get the Canadian people to worry about slightly warmer winters.

Q. Would it be harmful if the climate does become warmer?

A. If it does warm, there will be numerous benefits. Agriculture will be aided because crops will grow faster and sturdier. There will be slightly warmer winters with no effect on summers. Sea level will be hardly affected or perhaps it will rise slightly. This is because of the melting of the ice from the Ice Age and there&#8217;s nothing we can do about it. Kyoto&#8217;s proposals certainly won&#8217;t help.

Q. Do you think a change in our own national leaders will help to calm the fears that have been generated by environmental doomsayers?

A. I&#8217;m hoping that the election in 2000 will settle many things. Should George W. Bush be elected President, we have to remember that he subscribed to the science of global warming but he added that he&#8217;s opposed to the Kyoto protocol. To be perfectly honest, I don&#8217;t know where he stands. But I don&#8217;t think the climate issue will surface during the presidential campaign. I don&#8217;t think people care that much about it and maybe that&#8217;s a good thing. They&#8217;re not reacting to the doomsayers as they were expected to do.

A. He&#8217;s not a scientist. He likes to believe the theory because it predicts strong warming and helps to advance his agenda.

Q. Have you read his book, Earth in the Balance, where he actually calls for an end to the internal combustion engine, the guts of our automobiles?

A. No, I haven&#8217;t read the book but I&#8217;ve read numerous reviews. I understand that he did call for the end of the internal combustion engine. But, by itself, that would not be so serious if there were a substitute that works. I&#8217;m ready to substitute something for the internal combustion engine, something like a fuel cell that works, is cost effective, and economical for consumers. There are people working on this, but they haven&#8217;t produced one yet.

Q. Other than your own Science and Environmental Policy group, are you part of any scientific groups?

A. Yes, I signed the Oregon petition, which has been signed by 20,000 persons, 18,000 of whom have scientific degrees, many with advanced degrees. This project, begun in response to Kyoto, was launched by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson. He received important help from Dr. Fred Seitz, who sent a letter to scientists across the nation containing eight pages about global warming. In his letter, he stated that the Kyoto agreement was "based on flawed ideas" and that "data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful." And he urged recipients to sign the petition, which stated simply:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth&#8217;s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The Oregon petition was never altered and has 20,000 signatories. The doctored IPCC statement has only 2,000 signatories. But the media seem to focus only on the IPPC statement.

Q. What about the ozone layer and the claims that it is being depleted because of human activity?

A. The ozone layer depletion stopped about 1992. No more depletion has occurred. The total depletion that took place according to a thick United Nations report is about four percent. That&#8217;s negligible. Ozone varies from day to day by about 100 percent, and from season to season &#8212; if you average it &#8212; by about 40-50 percent. The World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program together produced figures stating that there has been no ozone depletion since 1992.

Q. If there are no problems associated with global warming or ozone depletion, is there any environmental problem?

A. The big problem, in my view, is disposing of solid waste, a nice way of referring to garbage. Many areas of the country are finding it difficult to locate suitable places for landfills. Some states are trying to ship their waste to other states. Officials are trying to prohibit the dumping of sludge in the ocean. And if you put waste underground, it may pollute the ground water. This is a real problem. But nobody seems to be getting excited about it. It doesn&#8217;t appeal to politicians because politicians seem to love global problems that are more glamorous than garbage.

Q. Do you have an answer to the garbage problem?

A. Incineration is a good answer. But it&#8217;s frowned on because it might create a little bit of dioxin. Yet this is the solution that&#8217;s being used in Europe. Taking care of the problem this way also generates some energy, so it has some additional advantages.

Q. What is your attitude about nuclear power?

A. Nuclear power is a perfectly reasonable solution to our energy problem. It may or may not be cheaper depending on how the generating stations are built and maintained. The degree of regulation now in place makes it rather expensive, particularly if you force power companies to rebuild their plants while they&#8217;re being built in order to satisfy newer regulations. But in many countries, generating electricity with nuclear power is cheaper than any other method. It is tragic that there have been no new nuclear power stations built in this country for many years. In countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and now China, they are building these stations rapidly. I hope they are using American technology because it is the safest.

Q. Any final comments?

A. Ten to twenty years from now, younger people will look at their parents and grandparents in disbelief and ask, "Gosh, were you really worried about global warming and ozone depletion?"